News-Record.com

One of my former employers, Freedom Communications, found itself in a tad of hot water earlier today after several bloggers noticed that an editorial in at least four different Freedom newspapers, two of them here in North Carolina, and was presented unsigned and uncredited at each, meaning the reader likely would infer that the piece had been written by someone on the staffs of the respective newspapers. (In fact, it originated at the Colorado Springs paper and was republished at the other three.)

Some of the bloggers (mostly liberal) who raised a stink about the deceptive republication did so in part because they disagreed with its substance, but its substance is not relevant to my point.

I don't know how common the practice of republishing editorials in that manner at Freedom papers is. I seem to recall its happening during the time I worked for the Freedom papers in New Bern and Gastonia (the papers implicated in today's kerfuffle are in Kinston and Jacksonville, N.C.), from late 1985 to early 1987, but I don't recall its happening often.

In a way, there's a certain logic to the practice, inasmuch as Freedom dictates a strongly libertarian editorial viewpoint and expects all its newspapers' editorial pages to do the same. So, from a philosophical standpoint, the editorials are almost literally interchangeable: If one Freedom newspaper thinks, as in this case, suspending the wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act in areas recovering from Katrina is a good idea, the others are likely to think pretty much the same thing, differing, if at all, on only minor points.

Moreover, once you get past the Orange County Register, the Colorado Springs Gazette and the Mesa, Ariz., paper, Freedom papers get pretty small pretty quickly. If you figure that most editorial pages run, say, two or three unsigned staff editorials a day, that means you'd have to come up with roughly 14 to 20 pieces a week, and almost no Freedom paper has enough staff to generate that many pieces consistently. So, if your duties include coming up with content for the editorial page of a Freedom newspaper, you almost inevitably are going to have to look outside your building for some, perhaps much, of your editorial content, and that's even before you cross the gutter to the op-ed page.

But the issue here is not one of resources or editorial philosophy, but of honesty, of being straight with the reader. Absent some internal corporate ban on the practice, there is absolutely nothing wrong with one Freedom paper's republishing an editorial written by the staff of another Freedom newspaper ... as long as the source of that editorial is identified. The republishing papers didn't do it, and that's where they erred.

My friend David Allen, who rages against the dying of the light over at the Institute for Creative Thoughtcrime, e-mailed the Kinston paper earlier today, asking why the source of the editorial hadn't been properly identified. He shared the response he got with me:

About the editorial "Mandated wage levels would raise recovery costs" that appears in The Free Press today, it originated in the Colorado Springs Gazette, a newspaper that is part of the Freedom Communications group, as is The Free Press. Due to the fact that we have one editorial writer here -- me -- and that I have many other responsibilities, I sometimes fall back on editorials generated by other Freedom newspapers. They express the libertarian point of view that is consistent in The Free Press and that runs through all newspapers in the group. Besides, an editorial is the opinion of the newspaper, not necessarily of the writer. In that respect, its [sic] something like debating. If any of you have a different opinion of Davis-Bacon -- and I suspect that may be the reason I'm hearing from you rather than your concern for diminished ethics in journalism -- you're welcome to spell it out in a letter to the editor. Patrick Holmes Associate Publisher/Executive Editor The Free Press Kinston, NC

I don't know Mr. Holmes, but I understand that he probably got a ton of hostile e-mail after some of the most-read liberal blogs in the country reported on this. But here in the age of blogs and media transparency, his answer isn't going to cut it. You address the issue raised, not whatever you think the motive behind raising the issue might be. In this case, the issue is being honest with your readers. With all due respect to Mr. Holmes, The Free Press was not honest with its readers on this issue and needs to change its policy ... and the mindset that led to it.